Christianity is founded on love. It espouses the doctrine of loving thy neighbor, not judging others, and forgiveness. These are the opening words of Miss Mocha Uson, the celebrated celebrity-turned-political analyst, in her article in the Philippine Star entitled “Is the CBCP anti-Christ?” (12/6/16). And yes, indeed, the Catholic Church has just closed the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy. So, the question remains: Why is the Philippine Church reacts violently against the burial of the late dictator at the cemetery for national heroes? Is the Church being hypocritical once more teaching forgiveness while not giving it to a dead man? Before I begin answering her questions, it might be good to state first that indeed I am biased. Yes, I am. I know some of her loyal followers will do a Character Investigation on me and will find that I am a seminarian so naturally I am biased on the side of the hierarchy of the Church. Another is that before entering the seminary I studied philosophy at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines whose philo department is known for leaning to the left. Technically most of them will critique this article using a lot of ad hominems and ad baculums but to the open mind I ask to have an intellectual conversation. And so yes, I am biased but, as Paul Ricœur said, we cannot actually remove our biases and prejudices but the challenge is to choose the right biases. Shall I now proceed? The Catholic Church and the Philippines Textbook history always depict Spanish colonial rule as oppressive and non-humane in the images of fat friars with native concubines. When the student reaches college or anytime he seriously reads Rizal, this belief will strengthen just looking at Padre Damaso. The problem with this stereotyping of history is that it is stereotyping – a hasty generalization. One tends to forget Padre Florentino of El Filibusterismo or the fact that the GomBurZa, who were priests, were Rizal’s inspiration for his nationalistic passions (in fact, El Fili is dedicated to them!). It must be noted that the negative aspect of the Church in the Philippines only appeared in the latter part of Spanish Colonization (i.e. after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe) and does not actually constitute the whole Church nor the whole Philippine archipelago. When Legazpi began the conquest of the Islands, the Augustinian Friars with him are often the ones who defends the natives having learned from the experience from Latin America. The reason why the Aztecs, Incas, and other native races of Latin America died is because the Conquistadores did not see them as human beings. This the missionaries fought with Fr Bartolome Delas Casas being the most notable one although it may be said to have failed. Having learned thus, the first missionaries in the Philippines fought for the human treatment of the Indios. This actually went so far as the Synod of Manila where the Church declared that it is not permissible to enslave nor mistreat the natives. One good example here is the martyr Saint Pedro Bautista who has been assigned in the Philippines for a long time before being sent to Japan and died there. He reprimanded the Governor-General in public when the latter approved of mistreatments against natives. Of course they have also their faults like the wiping of indigenous religious articles and practices but we can still say that the first batch of missionaries are actually first-class religious. As the world saw the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte in France and threatened the whole of Europe, the European missionaries went back to the continent and so an amazing vacuum of priests was thrown to the face of the Philippine Church. This made the Archbishop of Manila encourage the natives to join the priesthood. This new batch are what Canon Law, or the Church’s law, calls the “secular priests” or what is now called diocesan clergy. They do not belong to any religious congregation as compared to the religious or what by then is called the “regular” priests and they do not answer to any other superior but to the bishop directly. This is the group where notable Filipino priests like Fr José Burgos, Gregorio Aglipay and the like belongs. But things began to shake when at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, a new breed of religious friars were once again sent back to the Islands. Most of these are the friars Rizal and other Propagandistas met at their time. Indeed, the struggle for liberation started with the Filipino priest’s struggle to regain parishes that are rightfully his from the Spanish friars. At this point is Miss Uson first wrong. Rizal did not hate the Church as a whole (in fact, he is close to the Jesuits) but only some in the Church. And, in fact, this tension can only be felt in the Archdiocese of Manila (back then comprising almost three quarters of Luzon) the Diocese of Nueva Segovia (Upper part of Luzon) other dioceses like Cebu, Jaro and Nueva Caceres saw harmonious relationships between their religious bishop and secular priests. So at the end, Miss Uson you have jumped to conclusions and committed a hasty generalization and are historically wrong.
First things first. Is the Catholic Church against the burial of FM? No. Nothing has been stated about that. Most of the Church leaders are against the burial of FM at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The logical question will be: Why? We should remember that the LNMB is a resting place of heroes. An editorial of a broadsheet in the Philippines, one of those that still operated in Martial Law days, stated that the LNMB’s dead are not actually all heroes because some are presidents and national artists and scientists. I dare to disagree. The latter are still heroes in their own way. The former presidents who were not expelled by the Filipino people and the national artists and scientists are heroes because of what they have done. Martyrdom might be the highest heroic proof o be honored in the pantheon of national saints but it is not the sole criterion. Thus to bury the late dictator is to encourage more the culture of impunity in the country: i.e. run for public office-steal public funds-a case will filed against you-after long year you will be acquitted-and lo and behold you’ll be buried at LNMB. Thus to bury FM at LNMB is symbolic of enthroning his statue in place of Rizal at Luneta and declaring two scores of history null and void. Does this mean that the Church is unforgiving to a corpse? By no means. In fact, it must be recalled that after the Marcos family fled to Hawaii, it is Jaime Cardinal Sin (whom Miss Uson accuses of propagating the “yellow” bias) who asked the Filipino people to forgive the Marcoses and not harbor ill feelings. Furthermore, the Church or any of her ministers cannot forgive a corpse – because only the living can ask for forgiveness. Indeed, Christ himself said that there is actually one sin that cannot be forgiven – the sin against the Spirit. What is this sin? The sin against the Spirit is unrepentance and repentance cannot happen only privately if your sin affected a wider audience. Mercy must always be balanced with Justice and that is a basic Christian tenet. “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than holocausts” (Hos. 6: 6) but “if you offer me holocausts, then let justice roll down like waters” (Amos 5: 24). Given the case that FM really did repent, the answer of the Filipino people must remain a no since there has been no acceptance of guilt (publicly) and retribution (publicly). Why do I insist that these will be public? Well, the only answer is that because Ferdinand Sr’s sins are not only sins against God but crimes against mankind – crimes against humanity. Thus it is not only the Church who must forgive him but all of humanity. But since neither he nor his family has even accepted a single guilt then there is no room for forgiveness. Another note: Miss Uson accuses the Church to encourage people to hate and desecrate a dead person to which I answer that the Church do not. Rather, it is the Marcosian lie itself that encourages people to place him at the gates of hell.
Further, love and hatred are not contradictories. You may hate the one you love even as you still love him. The opposite of love is hatred. Thus reprimanding the sins of the past and encouraging others to hate the unrepentant who tries to deceive them that what he did is good is actually another form of love – that is what we call, fraternal correction. Then what is an anti-Christ? For me, it is the pointing finger. for a very good account on the clergy's role in the Philippine Revolution, see Schumacher, Revolutionary Clergy (ADMU Press); about the Philippine heroes especially Rizal and Burgos, see Nick Joaquin's books and Ambeth Ocampo's Rizal without the Overcoat (Anvil)
|
anonymous lenzJust a traveling someone in this reality we have fallen in love with... this we call our world... "What is essential is invisible to the eyes..." Tags
All
"The absolutely other is the Other" Archives
September 2018
"There is only one corner in the universe that you can be certain of improving and that's your own Self" |